As some of you may know, the American contingent in the annual Chartres pilgrimage flies a flag on which a Sacred Heart and cross are superimposed on the blue field of the American Flag. This sort of thing bothers me severely as it represents a tragic confusion of categories. Basically, a sacred image — the Sacred Heart and cross — are being used to defile the flag. How, you ask, can the Sacred Heart “defile” a flag? Because you can’t add any other element to the American Flag without ruining its symbolism. This isn’t like the flag of the United Kingdom where you can superimpose the crosses of various kingdoms. Rather, the American Flag *needs* to have all 13 of its 13 stripes and all 50 of its 50 stars visible. For every star that the Sacred Heart image covers up, a state of the Union is denied representation in the federal standard. I truly wish that the people who came up with this Bad Idea of adding a Christian symbol to the flag had first considered that there is no room on the flag for any other image unless you wish to destroy its meaning. The flag is over-saturated with meaning and adding any image — even a great and noble one — takes away rather than adds. Furthermore, it’s not as though a country *needs* to have a Christian image in its national flag. Sure, its nice, but there are many Christian countries whose national image is not explicitly Christian.

Before trying to market it in another away, I wanted first to post notice here that I have a Novus Ordo Latin breviary (4 volumes) for sale. These books are completely new, still with plastic slipcovers over the books and in their original cardboard packing boxes. They are a complete set of the editio economica, as the Libreria Editrice Vaticana puts it, which means that they have a vinyl covers rather than one e corio factum (leather). I purchased them in Rome while studying with Reggie, but already owned the old Breviary and I never found any use for them. You’ll find the same books here. The price listed at paxbook.com for each of the four volumes is $87.60. I’d like to sell these books for $300 (no additional charge for shipping). If you’re interested, please contact me at our email address: info – a t – cornellsociety.org.

This brief article in honor of Sir Kenneth Dover (who died this year on March 9) captures so much of what is wonderful about academia while also being indicative of much that is repugnant in it. It’s beyond any question that Dover was a very learned and intelligent man; I’m in awe of the mastery of Greek seen in the anecdote which Nussbaum shares:

What Dover could do without effort, most scholars could not do even with the most painstaking labor. When his autobiography, Marginal Comment, first appeared in 1994, I was visiting Dover and his wife Audrey at their home in St. Andrews. With a mischievous smile, he dashed into his study—to emerge a short time later with an inscribed copy. On the flyleaf was a Greek elegiac couplet in which Dover had managed (1) to use in an apposite and humorous way a Greek word whose meaning we had discussed in a co-authored article, disputing its translation with John Finnis Continue reading

This last week’s Gospel got me thinking: what is the status of the soul that is possessed?

I’ve always found this particular Bible passage (about how the devil that is cast out goes wandering in search of comfort, and, when he can’t find it, gets together a group of his evil buddies and goes back to invade the soul from which he was evicted) quite eerie. It actually seems to give us a bit of insight into demon psychology… but also to suggest that, after the demons are cast from the soul, it is ultimately in even greater danger since they are likely to return in force. Now, allowing one’s soul to be invaded by demons certainly doesn’t seem good. Our priest used this passage as an opening for talking about the importance of giving the devil no quarter, and keeping the door firmly closed to his influence. That doesn’t seem an unreasonable way to expand on the passage, but even so, I have to wonder: are people necessarily blameworthy when they are possessed?
Continue reading

I’m thinking of writing a country song called “Barack Obama Done Stole My Heart.” And, as you all reel in shock and horror, let me specify that this would not be a loving tribute to the Commander in Chief, but rather a lament that, given our country’s steady saunter towards socialism, I’ve become sadly cynical about any effort that is supposedly aimed at helping “the poor.” (Actually, there might be exceptions, because I do think that the poor in this country suffer greatly, but it is a suffering born primarily out of the totally degraded social conditions under which they live. So I don’t sneer at job training programs or marriage education, but mostly the programs I hear about seem aimed towards offering handouts of one kind or another, many of them no doubt to people who ought to be working.)

A classic example of what I hate cropped up at Mass recently where, at the Archbishop’s request, all the parishes have been playing a recorded message basically asking us to give money to the archdiocese. Now, in the first place, playing a recording seems tacky to me. If you want to send a letter for pastors to read out, fine. But do we have to have a little commercial, complete with cheesy, recorded music? It’s just not dignified.

Continue reading

Coming out of the last post (on “excessive Mariology), I thought I might pose the question: is it right to think of gender as accidental? When I say this, of course, I am referring to the Thomistic metaphysical language by which the characteristics of any thing are either essential (roughly, an unchangeable part of the sort of thing it is) or accidental (a characteristic of the thing that could theoretically be changed without changing the fundamental nature of that thing.)

Bonifacius, following St. Thomas, contends that gender is accidental, on the way to making an argument that the female gender is (accidentally but still intrinsically) inferior to the male. It is my opinion that this argument is offensive and degrading to women generally and Our Lady in particular; it is a fact that it contradicts the explicit teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You may read more of that discussion in the next thread. Here I just want to ask: how helpful is it to think of gender as an accident?

Continue reading

I ask for your prayers this Lent.  I desperately need them.  So for 1.) a private intention of mine, 2.) success in the completion of my dissertation (I defend on the Tuesday in Holy Week!), and 3.) good fortune in finding a job, I ask for your prayers.  And I shall be giving up this blog for Lent/dissertation completion purposes.  So please do not respond to this post other than by praying.  All responses in the combox result in an email being sent to me, which will only tempt me to return here.  I wish you all a holy Lent as well!

One of the things that people faulted in Sarah Palin is that she supported the killing of wolves from helicopters. Apparently, the Alaskan government determined that there were too many wolves and that the packs needed to be culled. First off, liberals are going to hate that right there. I think there are two related reasons for this. First, for man to assert himself over nature is to admit that God gave our species dominion over the earth and all that is in it. (Actually, God granted us stewardship for the earth, but the steward is just his master’s vicar, so practically speaking it amounts to the same thing. We act as master — exercise responsible dominion — in God’s place.) That means we are not just animals. Which means that we are responsible for directing our own passions — the wild beast within — in accordance with reason. And as both reason and will have been so severely compromised by original and actual sin, we need to seek grace. If the determination that we have a right to kill wolves is Proposition A,  then fealty to the Pope and the burning of votive candles with gaudily painted pictures of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the side are Proposition Z (I would argue that we actually get there by Proposition H). Continue reading

For debate: Could the situation arise in which the legal toleration of prostitution would be the lesser evil?  As prostitution is currently illegal in most jurisdictions in the United States, legal toleration would entail decriminalization, whether statutory or by way of informally “looking the other way.” 

St. Augustine of Hippo, “Divine Providence and The Problem of Evil”

What can be mentioned more sordid, more bereft of decency, or more full of turpitude than prostitutes, procurers, and the other pests of that sort? Remove prostitutes from human affairs, and you will unsettle everything because of lusts; place them in the position of matrons, and you will dishonor these latter by disgrace and ignominy. This class of people is, therefore, by its own mode of life most unchaste in its morals; by the law of order, it is most vile in social condition. (emphasis added) Continue reading

When the topic of men and women comes up, Catholics will almost invariably chime in, “The holiest person who ever lived was a woman!” This sort of comment gives me pause. The Blessed Virgin was indeed the holiest *human person* who ever lived. However, she was not the holiest *human being.* Our Lord, a man (i.e. male), was the holiest human being who ever lived. Unlike his completely human Mother, Our Lord was a divine Person with a divine nature in addition to His human one. He was infinitely holy and, as man, was holier than His Mother. So, we can’t say that the holiest created human being (Our Lord’s human nature was created) ever was a woman. The *second* holiest human being was a woman. So there is a hierarchy/inequality of man and woman even in the case of the New Adam and the New Eve.  They are not equal, not even in holiness. Only God outranks the Blessed Virgin, but that God is also incarnate as a human male. If the fact that the holiest human person was a woman says something (and it does!), so then so too does the fact that God chose to become incarnate as a man and not as a woman.  Point:  it’s a man’s world, albeit a God-Man’s.